Or maybe he has a problem with my snarky footnote. As you stated to like the formulation and he claims me to be the only voice of "my side", I invite you to state your case at talk:Nikola Tesla. If you rather not get involved in an edit war as silly as this one, that's fine by me. All the best another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop. You're wrong. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This country's going to hell! Ever since we let those damn Australians back into this country, everything has gone to shit! What the hell did we go to war with them for in the first place!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Krej! I stole that great quote you have on your userpage and put it as the opener for our Skepticism article. I hope that's fine. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you wrote the article and wanted to ask before I did anything... but would you be ok with me changing the tone in a few places? For instance:

The nation is presented as being an immaculate entity that has never done any harm to anyone, but has been perpetually wronged by others,[3] with any massacres or wrongs committed by "us" being completely ignored. This image of a saintly victim that is opposed to the fiendish, oppressive Other promotes a siege mentality[wp] which leads to suspicion, mistrust, and hatred towards other nations, which are perceived as being "enemies of the nation" with no redeeming qualities. This is also used as justification for irredentism. Since "we" are a perfect, peace-loving folks who would never dream of oppressing anyone, it is preferable that "our" country be as large as possible. Such an attitude also works in favor of assimilation or oppression of minorities; as "our" nation is superior to all others, the world would be objectively better if other groups belonged to our nation.[5]

Statements like "never done harm to anyone", "perpetually wronged by others", "completely ignored", "perfect", "no redeeming qualities" are what I'm uneasy about; they don't change the main thrust of what we're saying, but they're hyperbolic and I feel like they read like we're banking on the reader being convinced by the way the article is written instead of its content. Proposed revision:

The nation is often presented as an immaculate entity that has rarely, if ever, done harm to anyone; wrongs "we" have committed are often stifled, revised, or outright ignored. Wrongs of which "we" are on the receiving end, however, are frequently emphasized, embellished, and may even be fabricated[3]. This caricature of a saintly victim engaged against fiendish, oppressive Others tends to promote a siege mentality[wp] which leads to suspicion, mistrust, and hatred directed towards other nations, groups, and individuals. Extreme nationalism may be used as a justification for irredentism as well. Since "we" are a peace-loving people who would never dream of oppressing anyone (or at least anyone who matters), it is preferable that "our" country be as large as possible. Such an attitude also works in favor of assimilation and oppression of minorities; as "our" nation is universally superior, the world would be objectively better off if said world contained within it only our nation and our kind of people.[5]

Is this reasonable? Am I nitpicking? Would you be ok with applying this sort of change to the whole article? Let me know what you think? Thanks. B)talk 21:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask regarding this edit. You're the language expert around these parts, afaik. If the edit is correct, please leave it in. If the edit is incorrect, please undo it/roll it back. Thanks! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

just chatting casually to vapers, holy shit. Vapers will argue any point into the ground, you'd almost think they were rationalising addicts who felt their addiction was under threat. So it'll need to be cited to the phrase level.

Bad stuff I mostly got from US people, the hearty recommendations are from UK people. And I don't have anything on regulation of composition in the UK. That said, UK research suffers tremendous tobacco company capture. It's a minefield of lies and bullshit.

so this is nothing like ready for live yet. But hopefully we can get a good article out - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I don't know anything about vaping. Sorry.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, Krej! I noticed that you contribute substantial amounts to the Russian-language RW. FuzzyCatPotato has now fixed the inter-language RW links, if you'd like to use them when you edit, they look like this: